Technically, what you pointed to wasn’t censorship, but public pressure (a First Amendment right) to try to persuade publishers to withdraw publications.
Liberals make use of pressure, letter-writing, petitions, and boycotts a little less than conservatives. It isn’t a standard liberal mind-set. The Dixie Chicks could tell you more about this.
Yes, there are books liberals don’t like, and they will protest against them vigorously.
On the other hand, liberals are more likely than conservatives to be supporters of libraries and the annual “Banned Books Month” exhibit. Liberals are less likely to try to get books removed from libraries.
As for actual outright government censorship, liberals are very strong in their opposition. Conservatives…somewhat less.
You are not understanding what I am saying - but I believe I am at fault for the lack of clarity. What I am saying is that the belief that they are more tolerant and compassionate than non-liberals is a stupid idea held by liberals; i.e. I do not believe liberals are more tolerant or compassionate. We are in agreement.
Agreed. I am not a conventional conservative or a general liberal but my decades of personal experience has led me to believe that you want someone that classifies themselves as a conservative if you want a critical job done like saving your life or the life of a loved one. Engineers and IT professionals tend to be a strange breed of conservative and we do a great job of making the world go round. I know that does not include the whole world though, Each side needs to know their strengths and weaknesses and act accordingly but that is rarely done.
However, I don’t want to be too hard on liberals although I find their mindset hard to understand. They are better at long term social goals even though they may take a whole lot of missteps in the process. It would be much better if we could segregate people based on their strengths like a football team and let them vote accordingly but that isn’t possible.
See this is the problem with liberals. They believe any shit they read.
You know nothing about the Boy Scouts except what some leftist board has told you. Where do you get this shit?
I am NOT Mormon! My son’s scout troop is affiliated with a Jewish synagogue.
And what is this crap about the group being a bunch of homophobic atheists?
Do you even know the Scout oath?
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
Or the Scout Law?
A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,
courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty,
brave, clean, and reverent.
Oh gee, what a rotten, terrible bunch of haters they are! Call me weird but that sounds like some pretty good values to follow.
I guess we should just teach our kids to smoke pot all day and fuck everything they see right!
Yes the oath mentions God but as a higher power, not an actual figurehead.
What it comes down to is the freakin liberals cannot STAND to not have mind control over every damn group in the country. Hell, we should just all start wearing red neckerchiefs.
What the hell ever happened to being open minded and free speech?
I notice more belief that everyone should make fairly drastic changes to accommodate individuals or even potential individuals in liberals. Peanut-free schools eg. Or constantly checking to make sure that everyone is explicitly included in any general statement – fussing about traditional gendered language, etc. banning “freshman” instead insisting on “first-year student” and so on.
It’s not stupid to want to be inclusive, but the way it is often attempted by liberals can be cringeworthy. “He” being the default pronoun is not sexist, unless you think all languages with gender are automatically sexist.
As a big flaming liberal, I heartily endorse this list. It covers all the major stupid “liberal” ideas (they aren’t really liberal as I see it, but many so-called liberals believe them).
The Boy Scouts thing isn’t a mystery. They didn’t allow gay scouts until there was massive public pressure, and it looks like they still will kick out troop leaders that are gay.
Well, not all. As an organization, they aren’t exactly friendly to atheist kids. (It’s the “reverent” thing, it’s on that list of 12 things that starts with “A Scout is…”) They’ve self-identified as a religious organization in court in order to be able to kick them out.
My own experience with Scouting (which I enjoyed, btw) was that any religiosity was incidental. FWIW, a lot of Scout troops are sponsored by churches (including enough of the conservative ones, such as Mormons and Southern Baptists) who were probably threatening to make a stink and pull out of Scouting if the Scouts didn’t exclude atheists.
(And yes, they have somewhere else to go: conservative Christians have created a more conservative Scouting-like organization. So organizationally, the Boy Scouts of America does have reason to worry about defections from their right flank.)
Reiterating from earlier, there’s “believe” and believe. Obviously, a shitload of people say they believe GMO food is bad for you, but most people who “believe” that, believe it to about the same degree that someone who reads their daily horoscope, then goes on with their day the same as they otherwise would, “believes” in astrology.
It doesn’t actually impact anything they do, so it can’t be dangerous for them.
Liberals always seem to want to go the distance to protect public schools. Its hard to get therm to admit when problems exist. Their idea is to keep throwing more and more money into them.
Then, what is the real kicker, its amazing how many liberals send their own kids to private schools.
Do liberals send their kids to private schools more than conservatives? Around here, nearly all the private schools are Christian schools, and aside from the Catholic schools, they tend to be attached to very fundamentalist denominations, like Pentecostals, independent Baptists, or independent Churches of Christ. Now, the 7th Day Adventists have a private elementary school, and they tend to be conservatives on a lot of issues, but liberals on some social issues, and there is also a Talmud Torah, and it’s hard to say what Orthodox Jews are. A lot of the ones I know don’t vote, but the ones who do vote Democrat, because they find the efforts of the Republican party to make the US a “Christian” nation frightening.
There’s only one non-religious private school that I can think of, and it’s a Montessori school, so it probably is liberal.
I love these Social Security Trust Fund debates because I think in keeping with the spirit of the thread, it is an insane liberal idea. When you owe money to yourself, you don’t have an asset. Even if you are a really, really good credit risk. You will pay yourself back through future earnings, which is exactly the same way you get more money anyways. There is no asset.
Scenario: Wife earns $20. She “loans” it to her husband to go buy whiskey and cigarettes. Her husband signs an IOU to wife for $20 which she puts in the safe deposit box. Husband has an 820 credit score.
Tomorrow after the whiskey and cigs are gone, can the family fairly say that the $20 IOU in the safe deposit box is an asset? Remember, the husband’s credit is as good as gold and he will, with certainty, redeem the bond.
Husband goes to work on Monday and is paid $100. He puts $80 in checking and redeems the bond for $20. Family worth is $100.
What if the wife never issued the IOU in the first place? Husband goes to work on Monday and is paid $100. Family worth is $100.
Where is the functional difference? Would anyone in the above scenario actually suggest that wife’s $20 IOU bond has any value at all?
It’s not dangerous for them. It’s dangerous for the people who need the food but won’t get it because people are scared of it. But yes, it won’t impact the people themselves in any way, so it is safe “belief” to hold.
You mean shit like this? The story there is a church-sponsored Scout group had an openly gay Scout Master. Word of this got back to the national office, and they fired him. The church that was sponsoring the Scout troop refused to replace him. So the national office pulled their franchise: they kicked the entire church out of the organization, because they refused to discriminate against gays.
If you read that story, Urbanredneck, and thought the church was getting a raw deal, then you have exactly the same problem with the Boy Scouts of America as the average liberal. Because that’s exactly what the liberal objection to them is: high-handed and openly bigoted policies from the national leadership being forced on local troops regardless of how they feel about it.